Re: [Storagesync] Storagesync Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1

[Hugo González Labrador <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Dec 4, 2015, at 07:18 PM, Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 02, 2015 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Hugo González Labrador wrote:
> > Of course, the remoteStorage is targeted to browsers, so syncing does
> > not make too much sense in this case. With the rise of Linux container
> > micro-service based architectures, the deployment of  such highly
> > complex systems should become easier and faster.
> 
> It is not exclusively targeted at browsers, although the browser's
> Origin-based
> security model is required for sane client identification. You can
> totally
> access remoteStorage accounts using desktop apps, a proof-of-concept
> exists at
> https://github.com/untitaker/vdirsyncer.
> 

That's great to hear. If this is achievable maybe will be good to
clarify this aspect in the spec.

>From the abstract

    This draft describes a protocol by which client-side applications,
    running inside a web browser, can communicate with a data storage
    server that is hosted on a different domain name. This way, the
    provider of a web application need not also play the role of data
    storage provider. The protocol supports storing, retrieving, and
    removing individual documents, as well as listing the contents of an
    individual folder, and access control is based on bearer tokens.


it is difficult to infer that the spec is also targeted to non-web apps
as there are no mentions to server-side or desktop apps.

As far as I know the OAuth authentication flow works in client-side web
applications, have you managed to use such mechanism in your non-web
project ? That would be a really interesting achievement. Maybe this is
the cause why remoteStorage does not mention non-web apps in their
abstract.


Summoning Michiel to clarify this aspect.

> Synchronisation is a completely unrelated topic. I don't see how it's
> related
> to whether the protocol is targeted at browser applications, in either
> case
> offline sync has to work. And it does.
> 
> I don't understand what you mean with "linux container micro-service
> based
> architectures", or how it is related to this discussion.
> 

That was said to give an example of how using Docker Containers can help
to manage non-monolithic applications. Of course, that is not directly
related to sync.

> -- Markus
> 
> > 
> > Best,
> > 
> > Hugo
> > 
> > > Regards, Linhui
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Regards, Linhui
> > >>>> one from the CERN EOS project (management, disk and queue servers).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> The Phase I has implemented the ownCloud Sync Protocol and Phase II
> > >>>> will implement the SeaFile Sync Protocol. The choice of these
> > >>>> protocols among others is because they are really opposed to each
> > >>>> other in terms of syncing (delta vs non-delta, state-based vs log/event/git-
> > >>>> based sync …), so finding a common approach is more challenging.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Providing a base specification/architecture to measure the
> > >>>> feasibility of this draft is one of the objectives of the project.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I believe that the work being done here and in ClawIO are
> > >>>> supplementary to each other and I think mutual collaboration could
> > >>>> be beneficial for both sides.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also, if there is interest, the remoteStorage API can be added to
> > >>>> ClawIO.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best regards,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Hugo Gonzalez Labrador
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015, at 09:00 PM, [e-mail]
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>> > Send Storagesync mailing list submissions to
> > >>>> > [e-mail]
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > >>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync or, via email,
> > >>>> > send a message with subject or body 'help' to       storagesync-
> > >>>> > [e-mail]
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > You can reach the person managing the list at       storagesync-
> > >>>> > [e-mail]
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> > >>>> > specific than "Re: Contents of Storagesync digest..." Today's
> > >>>> > Topics:
> > >>>> >
> > >>>> >1. New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage    Internet-Draft
> > >>>> >available (Michiel de Jong)    2. Re: New version of draft-dejong-
> > >>>> >remotestorage Internet-Draft       available (Gihan Dias)    3.
> > >>>> >Re: New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-Draft
> > >>>> >available (Fei Song)
> > >>>> > _______________________________________________
> > >>>> > Storagesync mailing list [e-mail]
> > >>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync Email had 3
> > >>>> > attachments:
> > >>>> > + [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-
> > >>>> >   Draft available   2k (message/rfc822)
> > >>>> > + Re: [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-
> > >>>> >   Draft available   1k (message/rfc822)
> > >>>> > + Re: [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-
> > >>>> >   Draft available   2k (message/rfc822)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Storagesync mailing list [e-mail]
> > >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
> > >>
> 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Storagesync mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
>